According to Harrison “The Bell Beakers culture of Spain and Portugal” there are 2 different Bell Beaker cultures in Iberia, the older one, linked to Zambujal, and a new one, within the context of Sangmeister´s reflux theory, the “Palmela” complex, linked to the Ciempozuelos site, that arrived from Central Europe acrros the Rhone corridor and Southern France into Central Spain. The first one would be linked to Mediterranean dolicocephalic types, the second one to brachycephalic types.Archaeologist I. Barandiaran said in a class I was attending some years ago that, while the whole dolicocephalic/brachycephalic distinction was very questionable, there was however a clear distinction in body size, in the Los Millares older collective burials adult males averaged around 1.60 mts, while in Bell beaker individual burials males averaged around 1.75 mts. However I haven´t seen those data published anywhere.

The two types of Bell Beaker site in Iberia approach ties in neatly with Harrison & Heyd's analysis of Sion, as one would expect.

We know the Celtic peoples were not a unified, homogeneous nation by any means. If the the Beakers were pre-Celts or proto-Celts, it makes sense they were a set of affiliated tribes rather than a confederation.

Hi-tech research shows Neolithic axes have travelled from the Alps.IT’S a mystery that could shed light on life in Hampshire 6,000 years ago.

Four Stone Age axes, dating from a time when people had stopped hunting woolly mammoths and sabretoothed tigers and turned to farming, are giving clues to the origins of settled human life in the county.

They were found at Hill Head and Titchfield, near Fareham, and at Beaulieu, in the New Forest, and Bartonon- Sea.

The tools, which are now in Winchester City Council’s collection, have been analysed and found to originate in the north Italian Alps from around 4,000BC. They had been carried for many miles before they were lost in Hampshire. But no-one knows why or how they got here.

Helen Rees, Winchester’s curator of archaeology, said their origins were a mystery.

“There was probably a movement of people and the axes were brought in by settlers or they may have been traded,”

The research is part of Project JADE, a three-year, one-million-euro programme, which is funded by the French Government.

The analysis, undertaken at the British Museum, measured the electro-magnetic radiation in the axes.

The results can then be compared with those for rocks from known sources.

In 2003, extraction sites for the distinctive and beautiful green stone, known as jadeite, were discovered high up in the North Italian Alps by the pioneering archaeologists, Pierre and Anne-Marie Pétrequin.

The Hampshire axes were found to be from this source and so they had travelled many miles.

The axes date from the Neolithic period, a time of great change that saw the first farmers arrive in Britain from north-western Europe.

Researchers believe that jadeite axes were valued not just for their practical uses but also for magical properties.

These were conferred by their origin in places where earth meets sky; where this world meets that of the gods and spirits.

Comparisons with the continent show that the axes were old when they arrived in Hampshire. Along with the seed corn needed to grow crops, and domesticated animals, the settlers brought their treasured heirlooms to remind them of the magical places far away and to bring good luck in the new land.

Patricia Stallard, city council Cabinet member for culture and sport, said: “Once again, science has put flesh on the bones of a fascinating story about our ancestors and pointed up the value of Winchester Museums’ reserve collections.”

Meanwhile, a fifth specimen, from Shawford Down, near Winchester, which was recently donated to the museum, was pronounced by researchers to be “probably not Alpine”. Further work is under way to see if it might be British.

Hill Head and Fareham Evidence of settlements existing in the Second Ice Age and Saxon times have been suggested by the discovery of flint arrowheads, knives and other implements collected at Hill Head. During the Iron Age, the Celts are believed to have used the River Meon as a harbour for their boats.

Well over 100, in various shapes, sizes and shades of green, are known from Britain and Ireland. They have been the subject of speculation and study both here and abroad for over a century.http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba96/feat2.shtml

I saw your post about the green axes in another forum. They are very interesting, but too early to have been brought to the British Isles by the Beaker Folk. They seem to have arrived with Neolithic people. Farmers had been on the Continent for many centuries before they crossed into Britain and Ireland.

Neither the first farmers nor the Beaker Folk came from the Alps initially, nor did they settle heavily in the high mountains, but the Alps were a source of things they valued. For the Beaker people it was copper. Some people seem to have been specialists in mining and creating objects for trade.

Trade may have flowed down the Rhine from the Alps and across to the British Isles during both periods, but the suggestion seems to be that farming people had acquired the jade axes before they arrived in Britain from what is now France.

Apparently the Eupedia opinion is that the Beaker cultures grew out of Megalithic cultures. I don't think even overlays very well on maps, does it? Nor does it match with the Amesbury Archer findings and incursion of the round barrows. Eupedia almost seems to contradict itself here.

Quote from: Eupedia

It is doubtful that the Beaker culture (2800-1900 BCE) was already Indo-European (although they were influenced by the Corded Ware culture), because they were the continuity of the native Megalithic cultures. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the following Unetice (2300-1600 BCE), Tumulus (1600-1200 BCE), Urnfield (1300-1200 BCE) and Hallstatt (1200-750) cultures were linked to the spread of R1b to Europe, as they abruptly introduce new technologies and a radically different lifestyle.

While I was watching the video on YouTube that Jean M found for us I noticed this one and watched it. This is a radio interview with David Anthony, the author of "The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World".

I don't know if Authun is still listening on this forum so I'll quote him from a post he made elsewhere today.

Quote from: authun

The most recent metallurgical research into the Nebra Disk, dated to between 1800BC and 1600BC, shows that the Atlantic seaboard traded with the continental interior as far as Saxony-Anhalt. The copper used in the bronze has now been confirmed to have originated in the region of Bischofshofen in Austria. However, the surprise in late 2009 was the discovery that the tin used came from Cornwall. The most recent finding too is a surprise. The gold did not come from Romania as previously thought but also came from Cornwall, from the river Carnon. (Report in German) http://www.focus.de/wissen/wissenschaft/archaeologie/himmelsscheibe-von-nebra-das-gold-stammt-aus-england_aid_507482.html

got to say that after early enthusiasm I think now there is no easy single phase explanation for Rb1b2s distribution and proposed MRCA dates that agrees with archaeological distribution/expectation and dating. Not saying there is no sort of match but it is not a simple one if its there.

got to say that after early enthusiasm I think now there is no easy single phase explanation for Rb1b2s distribution and proposed MRCA dates that agrees with archaeological distribution/expectation and dating. Not saying there is no sort of match but it is not a simple one if its there.

That was nice. The basic natural environment is very similar to what we have here in Virginia. We even have some of the same, old, vine-covered buildings, in the same style. Here the vines are usually "Virginia Creeper", which has a kind of maple-looking leaf that turns bright scarlet in the fall.

I guess the British settlers tried to make Virginia as much like home as possible. :-)

got to say that after early enthusiasm I think now there is no easy single phase explanation for Rb1b2s distribution and proposed MRCA dates that agrees with archaeological distribution/expectation and dating. Not saying there is no sort of match but it is not a simple one if its there.

That was nice. The basic natural environment is very similar to what we have here in Virginia. We even have some of the same, old, vine-covered buildings, in the same style. Here the vines are usually "Virginia Creeper", which has a kind of maple-looking leaf that turns bright scarlet in the fall.

I guess the British settlers tried to make Virginia as much like home as possible. :-)

For some reason its hard not to think of old rural scenes and scenery when listening to Vaughan Williams music. That one I copied in 'the lark ascending' is a real hair standing on back on neck one for me.

The beaker theory for R1b1b2 spread me has the support of a compatible distribution and vaguely compatible archaeological and MRCA dating but its not a perfect fit. The biggest single flaw is that its really only in very recent years that the idea of beaker=migration has revived. However, it would be wrong to exaggerate the weight of evidence. Its still very much a matter of opinion. One thing that intrigues me is the possibility that R1b1b2 could do archaeology a favour and help nail down the origin s of the beaker culture. The earliest dates seem western but somehow if it is to be linked to R1b1b2 it must link back to the area of the upstream forms in SE/eastern Europe and SW Asia. I have heard Jean's take on it and those of others but my main feeling is nothing is certain as yet. In fact I think R1b1b2 is more likely to help solve the issue of beaker origins than the archaeology of the beaker culture is to resolve R1b1b2 origins. Its actually an unfortunate thing that R1b1b2 might be linked to another (archaeological) mystery. The advantage of the beaker theory is that the beaker distribution at least bears some some resemblance to that of R1b1b2 while earlier Neolithic cultures tend to be EITHER north or south of the Alps/Pyrennees not both.

The beaker theory for R1b1b2 spread me has the support of a compatible distribution and vaguely compatible archaeological and MRCA dating but its not a perfect fit. The biggest single flaw is that its really only in very recent years that the idea of beaker=migration has revived. However, it would be wrong to exaggerate the weight of evidence. Its still very much a matter of opinion. One thing that intrigues me is the possibility that R1b1b2 could do archaeology a favour and help nail down the origin s of the beaker culture. The earliest dates seem western but somehow if it is to be linked to R1b1b2 it must link back to the area of the upstream forms in SE/eastern Europe and SW Asia. I have heard Jean's take on it and those of others but my main feeling is nothing is certain as yet. In fact I think R1b1b2 is more likely to help solve the issue of beaker origins than the archaeology of the beaker culture is to resolve R1b1b2 origins. Its actually an unfortunate thing that R1b1b2 might be linked to another (archaeological) mystery. The advantage of the beaker theory is that the beaker distribution at least bears some some resemblance to that of R1b1b2 while earlier Neolithic cultures tend to be EITHER north or south of the Alps/Pyrennees not both.

One doubt I have regarding a Bell beake origin in Zambujal compatible with R1b is that Southern Portugal is the area in Iberia with the lower percentage of R1b in modern populations, below 50%

Main problem I have with the beaker solution is that it is far far less clearcut as a demographic window of opportunity for a huge expansion and dominance of new y-lines than the arrival of farming. I know that there is a very recent attempt to pull together disparate scraps of evidence from around Europe to show that there was a major demographic changes happened. I just do not think the evidence for the latter has reached anything like the level where it is more than a possible alternative hypothesis. A fall in population level followed by a rise is not evidence of an invasion. There are many other possible reasons. Contrary to what a lot of people think, the beaker culture did not feature technical superiority that would provide a demographic advantage. Certainly not in the way that the first farmers had. They were not technically more advanced than the natives. Indeed in many ways the natives had shown that they were capable of major projects (henges etc) and organised military attacks (huge numbers of arrowheads at causewayed enclosures). The Gimbutas idea of peaceful natives and warlike beaker people etc is a myth. I think it was British Archaeology that published an article in the last year that showed just how violent the Neolithic was in the British Isles. The knowledge of copper was not really a huge advantage until it was alloyed into a harder metal. Militarily I am not sure the beaker people had any advantage. The main weapons of both the natives and the beaker culture were bow and flint arrows, flint javelin heads, stone axes/maces, flint knives etc.

In addition the evidence for a population fall to date is localised. I know in the British Isles the immediate pre-beaker phase (in which grooved ware was an important ceramic) there seems to be a rash of impressive monuments such as henges, timber circles, stone circles etc and on several sites the monuments use rolls on seamlessly from a grooved ware to a beaker ware phase. It certainly seems to me that the immediate pre-beaker phase is rich in the British Isles with a major amount of ritual monument building. There is a lot of evidence for continuity of the pre-beaker ritual monuments into the beaker phase and even stonehenge itself shows a basic continuity of use and some traditions from the pre-beaker phase. It would seem beaker period settlers must have in-filled rather than toppled the existing society.

If the beaker phase is the arrival of R1b1b2 then the process of its growth was subtle and gradual and more along the lines of the Ghengis Khan effect from small beginings than a big invasion wage or military conquest.

Main problem I have with the beaker solution is that it is far far less clearcut as a demographic window of opportunity for a huge expansion and dominance of new y-lines than the arrival of farming. I know that there is a very recent attempt to pull together disparate scraps of evidence from around Europe to show that there was a major demographic changes happened. I just do not think the evidence for the latter has reached anything like the level where it is more than a possible alternative hypothesis. A fall in population level followed by a rise is not evidence of an invasion. There are many other possible reasons. Contrary to what a lot of people think, the beaker culture did not feature technical superiority that would provide a demographic advantage. Certainly not in the way that the first farmers had. They were not technically more advanced than the natives. Indeed in many ways the natives had shown that they were capable of major projects (henges etc) and organised military attacks (huge numbers of arrowheads at causewayed enclosures). The Gimbutas idea of peaceful natives and warlike beaker people etc is a myth. I think it was British Archaeology that published an article in the last year that showed just how violent the Neolithic was in the British Isles. The knowledge of copper was not really a huge advantage until it was alloyed into a harder metal. Militarily I am not sure the beaker people had any advantage. The main weapons of both the natives and the beaker culture were bow and flint arrows, flint javelin heads, stone axes/maces, flint knives etc.

In addition the evidence for a population fall to date is localised. I know in the British Isles the immediate pre-beaker phase (in which grooved ware was an important ceramic) there seems to be a rash of impressive monuments such as henges, timber circles, stone circles etc and on several sites the monuments use rolls on seamlessly from a grooved ware to a beaker ware phase. It certainly seems to me that the immediate pre-beaker phase is rich in the British Isles with a major amount of ritual monument building. There is a lot of evidence for continuity of the pre-beaker ritual monuments into the beaker phase and even stonehenge itself shows a basic continuity of use and some traditions from the pre-beaker phase. It would seem beaker period settlers must have in-filled rather than toppled the existing society.

If the beaker phase is the arrival of R1b1b2 then the process of its growth was subtle and gradual and more along the lines of the Ghengis Khan effect from small beginings than a big invasion wage or military conquest.

As I said before, if the Beakers possessed metallurgy, horses and wheeled vehicles, that would have given them a tremendous military advantage over people who had none of these. I am not certain how clear the evidence is in that regard, but I believe that is Jean's position. Again I am not necessarily suggesting a hostile invasion or mass slaughter of the existing population, but people with a clear military superiority could soon take control and establish themselves as an elite among the previous inhabitants.

Main problem I have with the beaker solution is that it is far far less clearcut as a demographic window of opportunity for a huge expansion and dominance of new y-lines than the arrival of farming. I know that there is a very recent attempt to pull together disparate scraps of evidence from around Europe to show that there was a major demographic changes happened. I just do not think the evidence for the latter has reached anything like the level where it is more than a possible alternative hypothesis. A fall in population level followed by a rise is not evidence of an invasion. There are many other possible reasons. Contrary to what a lot of people think, the beaker culture did not feature technical superiority that would provide a demographic advantage. Certainly not in the way that the first farmers had. They were not technically more advanced than the natives. Indeed in many ways the natives had shown that they were capable of major projects (henges etc) and organised military attacks (huge numbers of arrowheads at causewayed enclosures). The Gimbutas idea of peaceful natives and warlike beaker people etc is a myth. I think it was British Archaeology that published an article in the last year that showed just how violent the Neolithic was in the British Isles. The knowledge of copper was not really a huge advantage until it was alloyed into a harder metal. Militarily I am not sure the beaker people had any advantage. The main weapons of both the natives and the beaker culture were bow and flint arrows, flint javelin heads, stone axes/maces, flint knives etc.

In addition the evidence for a population fall to date is localised. I know in the British Isles the immediate pre-beaker phase (in which grooved ware was an important ceramic) there seems to be a rash of impressive monuments such as henges, timber circles, stone circles etc and on several sites the monuments use rolls on seamlessly from a grooved ware to a beaker ware phase. It certainly seems to me that the immediate pre-beaker phase is rich in the British Isles with a major amount of ritual monument building. There is a lot of evidence for continuity of the pre-beaker ritual monuments into the beaker phase and even stonehenge itself shows a basic continuity of use and some traditions from the pre-beaker phase. It would seem beaker period settlers must have in-filled rather than toppled the existing society.

If the beaker phase is the arrival of R1b1b2 then the process of its growth was subtle and gradual and more along the lines of the Ghengis Khan effect from small beginings than a big invasion wage or military conquest.

As I said before, if the Beakers possessed metallurgy, horses and wheeled vehicles, that would have given them a tremendous military advantage over people who had none of these. I am not certain how clear the evidence is in that regard, but I believe that is Jean's position. Again I am not necessarily suggesting a hostile invasion or mass slaughter of the existing population, but people with a clear military superiority could soon take control and establish themselves as an elite among the previous inhabitants.

I think the evidence for early wheeled vehicles does not indicate there would be much military use. We are talking ponderous heavy probably cattle drawn block wheeled slow vehicles. Also, even as late as the Iron Age there is evidence that horse riding was transport to the battlefield more than actual fighting on horseback. It was really only in the full Medieval period with a number of advances that horses were a force of overwhelming advantage in western Europe. Fighting on light horses without proper saddles, stirrips etc without specialist weaponry is just not a huge advantage and hence cavalry remained less important in the pre-Norman period.

As for metallurgy. Arrows, javelin heads, most axes and all maces remained stone/flint in the beaker period. The only new weapon (if they were used as such) that the early beaker period people had was the copper axe but soft copper has been shown in tests to be no better than stone for axes. Harder bronze was not invented until well into the beaker period.